Light-Walled Rectangular Pipe and Tube from Turkey; Notice of Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 33200-33204 [2011-14172]

Download as PDF 33200 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 110 / Wednesday, June 8, 2011 / Notices sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Duty Absorption Section 751(a)(4) of the Act provides for the Department, if requested, to determine during an administrative review initiated two or four years after publication of the order, whether antidumping duties have been absorbed by a foreign producer or exporter, if the subject merchandise is sold in the United States through an affiliated importer. See also, 19 CFR 351.213(j). On July 10, 2010, Petitioner requested that the Department determine whether TMI had absorbed antidumping duties for U.S. sales of pure magnesium made during the POR. Since the instant review was initiated more than five years after publication of the pure magnesium order, this request is untimely and, as such, we have not conducted a duty absorption analysis. hearing, within 120 days of publication of these preliminary results, pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act. Assessment Rates The Department will determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries of subject merchandise in accordance with the final results of this review.64 For assessment purposes, we calculated importer- or customer-specific assessment rates for merchandise subject to this review. We calculated an ad valorem rate for each importer or customer by dividing the total dumping margins for reviewed sales to that party by the total entered value associated with those transactions. For dutyassessment rates calculated on this basis, we will direct CBP to assess the resulting ad valorem rate against the entered customs values for the subject Weighted-Average Dumping Margin merchandise. Where appropriate, we The preliminary weighted-average calculated a per-unit rate for each dumping margin is as follows: importer or customer by dividing the total dumping margins for reviewed PURE MAGNESIUM FROM THE PRC sales to that party by the total sales quantity associated with those Weighted-avtransactions. For duty-assessment rates Exporter erage margin (percentage) calculated on this basis, we will direct CBP to assess the resulting per-unit rate Tianjin Magnesium Interagainst the entered quantity of the national Co. Ltd ................. 0 subject merchandise. Where an importer- or customer-specific Disclosure assessment rate is de minimis (i.e., less The Department will disclose than 0.50 percent) in accordance with calculations performed for these the requirement of 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2), preliminary results to the parties within the Department will instruct CBP to five days of the date of publication of assess that importer’s or customer’s this notice in accordance with 19 CFR entries of subject merchandise without 351.224(b). Any interested party may regard to antidumping duties. We request a hearing within 30 days of intend to instruct CBP to liquidate publication of these preliminary entries containing subject merchandise results.61 If a hearing is requested, the exported by the PRC-wide entity at the Department will announce the hearing PRC-wide rate we determine in the final schedule at a later date. Interested results of this review. The Department parties may submit case briefs and/or intends to issue appropriate assessment written comments no later than 30 days instructions directly to CBP 15 days after the date of publication of the after publication of the final results of preliminary results of review.62 Rebuttal this review. briefs and rebuttals to written Cash Deposit Requirements comments, limited to issues raised in The following cash deposit such briefs or comments, may be filed requirements will be effective upon no later than five days after the time limit for filing the case briefs.63 Further, publication of the final results of this administrative review for shipments of we request that parties submitting the subject merchandise from the PRC written comments provide the entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, Department with an additional for consumption on or after the electronic copy of those comments on a publication date, as provided by CD–ROM. The Department intends to sections 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) For issue the final results of this TMI, which has a separate rate, the cash administrative review, which will deposit rate will be that established in include the results of its analysis of the final results of this review (except, issues raised in all comments, and at a if the rate is zero or de minimis, zero 61 See 19 CFR 351.310(c). cash deposit will be required); (2) for 62 See 63 See 19 CFR 351.309(c)(ii). 19 CFR 351.309(d). VerDate Mar<15>2010 21:51 Jun 07, 2011 64 See Jkt 223001 PO 00000 19 CFR 351.212(b). Frm 00010 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 previously investigated or reviewed PRC and non-PRC exporters not listed above that received a separate rate in a prior segment of this proceeding, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the exporter-specific rate; (3) for all PRC exporters of subject merchandise that have not been found to be entitled to a separate rate, the cash deposit rate will be the PRC-wide rate of 111.73 percent; and (4) for all non-PRC exporters of subject merchandise which have not received their own rate, the cash deposit rate will be the rate applicable to the PRC exporter that supplied that nonPRC exporter. These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice. Notification to Importers This notice serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary’s presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties. This administrative review and notice are in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213. Dated: May 31, 2011. Ronald K. Lorentzen, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. 2011–14044 Filed 6–7–11; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A–489–815] Light-Walled Rectangular Pipe and Tube from Turkey; Notice of Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: In response to a request from Noksel Celik Boru Sanayi A.S., (Noksel), the Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on light-walled rectangular pipe and tube from Turkey. Atlas Tube, Inc. and Searing Industries, Inc. are petitioners in this case. The review covers exports of the subject AGENCY: E:\FR\FM\08JNN1.SGM 08JNN1 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 110 / Wednesday, June 8, 2011 / Notices merchandise to the United States produced and exported by Noksel. The period of review (POR) is May 1, 2009, through April 30, 2010. We preliminarily find that Noksel did not make sales at less than normal value (NV) during the POR. If these preliminary results are adopted in our final results of this review, we will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to assess appropriate antidumping duties on any entries made by Noksel during the POR and to set the cash deposit rate for Noksel to zero. DATES: Effective Date: June 8, 2011 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tyler Weinhold or Robert James, AD/ CVD Operations, Office 7, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–1121 or (202) 482– 0649, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Background The Department published the antidumping duty order on light-walled rectangular ripe and tube from Turkey on May 30, 2008. See Notice of Antidumping Duty Order: Light-Walled Rectangular Pipe and Tube from Turkey, 73 FR 31065 (May 30, 2008). On May 3, 2010, the Department published the notice of opportunity to request an administrative review of light-walled rectangular pipe and tube from Turkey for the period January 30, 2009, through April 30, 2010. See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity To Request Administrative Review, 75 FR 23236 (May 3, 2010) On May 28, 2010, Noksel requested an administrative review for this period. On June 30, 2010, the Department published in the Federal Register a notice of initiation of this antidumping duty administrative review. See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Requests for Revocation in Part, 75 FR 37759 (June 30, 2010). On July 15, 2010, the Department issued its antidumping questionnaire to Noksel. As discussed in detail, below, on August 9, 2010, Noksel submitted a letter requesting that the reporting period be modified to cover only the period of October 1, 2009, through April 30, 2010, and that it be excused from reporting certain home market sales of ‘‘second quality’’ merchandise for which Noksel claimed it lacked sufficient records to allow it to respond fully to the Department’s questionnaire or to identify foreign like product. On August VerDate Mar<15>2010 21:51 Jun 07, 2011 Jkt 223001 13, 2010, the Department sent Noksel a supplemental questionnaire requesting additional information about Noksel’s request for limited reporting of home market sales. On August 16, 2010, the Department sent Noksel a letter accepting Noksel’s limited reporting of home market sales to the period October 1, 2009, to April 30, 2010, and tentatively excusing Noksel from reporting the sales of certain ‘‘second quality’’ merchandise for which Noksel claimed it lacked sufficient records. Noksel submitted its response to the Department’s supplemental questionnaire regarding limited reporting on August 20, 2010 (Noksel’s August 20, 2010 Response). Noksel submitted its response to section A of the Department’s antidumping questionnaire on August 16, 2010 (Noksel’s Section A Response). Noksel submitted its response to sections B and C of the antidumping questionnaire on September 7, 2010 (Noksel’s Sections B and C Response). On November 12, 2010, the Department issued a supplemental questionnaire to Noksel regarding Noksel’s Section A Response and Noksel’s Sections B and C Response and Nokel’s Limited Reporting Questionnaire Response. Noksel submitted its response to the Department’s supplemental questionnaire on December 20, 2010 (Noksel’s December 20, 2010 Response). On March 4, 2011, the Department issued a second supplemental questionnaire to Noksel regarding its prior questionnaire responses. Noksel submitted its response to the Department’s second supplemental questionnaire on March 23, 2011 (Noksel’s March 23, 2011 Response). Scope of the Order The merchandise subject to this order is certain welded carbon quality lightwalled steel pipe and tube, of rectangular (including square) cross section, having a wall thickness of less than 4 mm. The term carbon-quality steel includes both carbon steel and alloy steel which contains only small amounts of alloying elements. Specifically, the term carbon-quality includes products in which none of the elements listed below exceeds the quantity by weight respectively indicated: 1.80 percent of manganese, or 2.25 percent of silicon, or 1.00 percent of copper, or 0.50 percent of aluminum, or 1.25 percent of chromium, or 0.30 percent of cobalt, or 0.40 percent of lead, or 1.25 percent of nickel, or 0.30 percent of tungsten, or 0.10 percent of molybdenum, or 0.10 percent of niobium, or 0.15 percent vanadium, or PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 33201 0.15 percent of zirconium. The description of carbon-quality is intended to identify carbon-quality products within the scope. The welded carbon-quality rectangular pipe and tube subject to this order is currently classified under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) subheadings 7306.61.50.00 and 7306.61.70.60. While HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and CBP’s customs purposes, our written description of the scope of the order is dispositive. Limited Home Market Reporting As explained above, Noksel requested that the reporting period for home market sales be limited to the period October 1, 2009, to April 30, 2010. Noksel reported U.S. sales which were invoiced in only one calendar month of the POR. Noksel reported that it had no other U.S. sales during the POR. See, e.g., Noksel’s August 9, 2010, letter. Noksel also requested that the Department excuse it from reporting home-market sales of certain ‘‘second quality’’ merchandise for which Noksel claimed it lacked sufficient records. See Noksel’s August 9, 2010, letter. Regarding Noksel’s request that we limit the home market reporting period, our past practice in other cases in which respondents made sales of subject merchandise in only a portion of the POR has been to allow respondents to limit their home market sales reporting period to those home market sales which are contemporaneous with their U.S. sales. See, e.g., Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products From India: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 71 FR 2018 (January 12, 2006) (unchanged in Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products From India: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 71 FR 40694); Certain HotRolled Flat-Rolled Carbon Quality Steel Products from Brazil; Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 70 FR 17406 (April 6, 2005) (unchanged in Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Certain HotRolled Flat-Rolled Carbon Quality Steel Products From Brazil, 70 FR 58683); and Light-Walled Rectangular Pipe and Tube from Turkey; Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 75 FR 61127 (October 4, 2010). For this reason, we have permitted Noksel to limit its reporting of home market sales to those months which are contemporaneous with its U.S. sales. In our margin calculations, U.S. sales made in January 2010 could potentially be compared to the prices of home market E:\FR\FM\08JNN1.SGM 08JNN1 33202 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 110 / Wednesday, June 8, 2011 / Notices sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES sales at any time between October 2009 and March 2010; U.S. sales made in February 2010 could potentially be compared to the prices of home market sales made between November 2009 and April 2010. U.S. sales made in January 2010 or February 2010 could not match to home market sales made in any months outside of these periods. Therefore, to ensure that we would have the necessary home market sales, regardless of our choice of date of sale, we allowed Noksel to limit its reporting of home market sales to those sales made during the period October 2009 through April 2010. Our analysis indicated, based on record evidence, that the appropriate date of sale of Noksel’s U.S. sales might properly be a date in February 2010. See, e.g., Exhibit C–2 of Noksel’s Section B and C response, at page 2 and Exhibit SB–8 of Noksel’s December 20, 2010 Response at page 4. Therefore, to allow the Department to use the date of sale methodology deemed most appropriate, and to ensure completeness, we asked Noksel to report home market sales made in May 2010 as well. See the Department’s March 4, 2011, supplemental questionnaire and Noksel’s March 23, 2011 Response. Accordingly, for these preliminary results, we have limited the reporting period for home market sales to the period of October 1, 2009, through May 31, 2010. As noted, Noksel also reported that it had made sales of certain ‘‘second quality’’ merchandise for which Noksel claimed it lacked complete sales records. See Noksel’s August 9, 2010, letter. Noksel further explained that it could not differentiate the sales of these products according to product type. We excused Noksel from reporting these sales in its sales home market database, but we also subsequently asked Noksel to report whatever information if maintained about these sales. See the Department’s March 4, 2011, supplemental questionnaire. Noksel complied. See Noksel’s March 23, 2011 Response. Based on the information on the record, we preliminarily determine that these are sales of ‘‘second quality’’ merchandise that would not be suitable for matching to the prime quality pipe Noksel sold in the United States. Fair Value Comparisons To determine whether sales of lightwalled rectangular pipe and tube from Turkey in the United States were made at less than NV, we compared U.S. price to NV, as described in the ‘‘Export Price’’ and ‘‘Normal Value’’ sections of this notice. In accordance with section 777A(d)(2) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as VerDate Mar<15>2010 21:51 Jun 07, 2011 Jkt 223001 amended (the Act), we calculated monthly weighted-average NVs and compared these to individual U.S. transactions. Because we determined Noksel made only EP sales during the POR, we used EP as the basis for U.S. price in all of our comparisons. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.410(i), the Department ‘‘normally’’ will use invoice date as the date of sale unless ‘‘a different date better reflects the date on which the exporter or producer establishes the material terms of sale.’’ Based on evidence on the record, we preliminarily determine that the material terms of sale for U.S. sales were established at the time of the issuance of the purchase order/contract. Noksel explained that quantity can vary between the purchase order date and the invoice date. Noksel reports that a quantity tolerance is permitted from the quantity stated on the purchase order, and that quantity can vary after the date of the purchase order, up until production is completed. See Noksel’s Section A Response at page A–18 and page 1 of Exhibit A–8; Noksel’s Sections B and C Response at pages C–12, and Noksel’s December 20, 2010 Response at pages S–62 to S–64 and Noksel’s March 23, 2011 Response at pages 14 to 15. However, in the case of Noksel’s U.S. sale, neither quantity nor unit price varied between purchase order and invoice. See Noksel’s Section A Response at Exhibit A–8. Based on record evidence, we also determine that the material terms of sale for home market sales were established at the time the purchase order. Therefore, we used the purchase order date, as recorded in Noksel’s normal books and records, as the date of sale for Noksel’s U.S. and home market sales. See Memorandum from Tyler Weinhold to the File, ‘‘Analysis of Data Submitted by Noksel Celik Boru Sanayi A.S., (Noksel) in the Preliminary Results of the 2009–2010 Administrative Review of Light-Walled Rectangular Pipe and Tube from Turkey,’’ dated May 31, 2011 (Preliminary Analysis Memorandum). Product Comparisons In accordance with section 771(16) of the Act, we considered all products produced by Noksel covered by the description in the ‘‘Scope of the Order’’ section, above, and sold in the home market during the POR, to be foreign like products for purposes of determining appropriate product comparisons to U.S. sales. As mentioned above, we limited the reporting period for home market sales to the period of October 1, 2009, through May 31, 2010. We relied on six characteristics to match U.S. sales of PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 subject merchandise to home market sales of the foreign like product (listed in order of priority): (1) Steel input type; (2) metallic coating; (3) painted/nonpainted; (4) perimeter; (5) wall thickness; and (6) shape. See the antidumping questionnaire at Appendix 5. In our normal practice where there are no contemporaneous sales of identical merchandise in the home market to compare to U.S. sales, we compare U.S. sales to contemporaneous sales of the next most similar foreign like product on the basis of these product characteristics and the reporting instructions listed in the antidumping questionnaire. See Preliminary Analysis memorandum at page 2. For these preliminary results, we compared U.S. sales to identical foreign like products. In our normal practice, where there are no sales of identical or similar merchandise in the home market suitable for comparison to U.S. sales, we compare U.S. sales to constructed value (CV). For these preliminary results, because there were sales of identical merchandise in the home market suitable for comparison to each U.S. sale, we compared no U.S. sales to CV in these preliminary results. Export Price Section 772(a) of the Act defines Export Price (EP) as ‘‘the price at which the subject merchandise is first sold (or agreed to be sold) before the date of importation by the producer or exporter of subject merchandise outside of the United States to an unaffiliated purchaser in the United States or to an unaffiliated purchaser for exportation to the United States,’’ as adjusted under section 772(c). In accordance with section 772(a) of the Act, we used EP for all of Noksel’s U.S. sales. We preliminarily find that these sales are properly classified as EP sales because these sales were made before the date of importation and were made directly to unaffiliated U.S. customers, and because our CEP methodology was not otherwise warranted. We based EP on the prices to unaffiliated customers in the United States. We made adjustments for duty drawback. We also made deductions for movement expenses in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act, which included, where appropriate, foreign inland freight, foreign brokerage and handling, international freight, and exporter’s association fee. See Preliminary Analysis memorandum at page 7. Additionally, we made adjustments for direct selling expenses (credit expenses, banking charges) in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act. Id. E:\FR\FM\08JNN1.SGM 08JNN1 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 110 / Wednesday, June 8, 2011 / Notices Noksel originally stated that it reported its U.S. sales and per-unit adjustments according to Turkish Customs weigh station weights, as recorded on the Turkish customs exit declaration. However, Noksel later clarified that it had mistakenly misrepresented the quantity reported in its U.S. sales databases as coming from Turkish Customs weigh station weights, when in fact it was taken from the weights from Noksel’s normal books and records, recorded during packing of the subject merchandise. See Noksel’s March 23, 2011 Response at page 14 and Noksel’s December 20, 2010 Response at page S–94. Noksel explained that it weighed individual bundles of foreign like product and subject merchandise during packing, and was able to tie the recorded weights of individual bundles of pipe to specific home market and U.S. sales invoices. See Noksel’s December 20, 2010 Response at pages S–88 to S–98, and S–113. We relied upon this information for these preliminary results. Noksel reported that it collected rebates of import duties for purchases of raw materials, based on its exports of merchandise (duty drawback), under the Turkish Inward Processing Regime (IPR). Noksel reported that these rebates were dependent upon its exports of subject merchandise. See Noksel’s Sections B and C Response at pages C– 31 to C–32. Noksel also demonstrated the quantity of imports of materials for which Noksel received rebates of import duties were sufficient to cover the quantity of exports made under the IPR. See Noksel’s December 20, 2010 Response at pages S–117 to S–119, and Noksel’s March 23, 2011 Response at pages 16 to 23. Therefore in accordance with section 772(c)(1)(B) of the Act, we made an upward adjustment to U.S. price for duty drawback. See, e.g., Certain Welded Carbon Steel Pipe and Tube From Turkey: Notice of Final Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 75 FR 64250 (October 19, 2010). See also Preliminary Analysis Memorandum at page 6. sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Normal Value A. Selection of Comparison Market In order to determine whether there was a sufficient volume of sales in the home market to serve as a viable basis for calculating NV (i.e., the aggregate volume of home market sales of the foreign like product was equal to or greater than five percent of the aggregate volume of U.S. sales), we compared Noksel’s volume of home market sales of the foreign like product to the volume of U.S. sales of the subject merchandise, VerDate Mar<15>2010 21:51 Jun 07, 2011 Jkt 223001 in accordance with section 773(a)(1) of the Act. Because Noksel’s aggregate volume of home market sales of the foreign like product was greater than five percent of its aggregate volume of U.S. sales of the subject merchandise, we determined the home market was viable. Therefore, we have based NV on home market sales in the usual commercial quantities and in the ordinary course of trade. B. Price-to-Price Comparisons We calculated NV based on prices to unaffiliated customers. We made adjustments for billing adjustments, where appropriate. We made deductions, where appropriate, for foreign inland freight, pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(B) of the Act. In addition, when comparing sales of similar merchandise, we made adjustments for differences in cost (i.e., DIFMER), where those differences were attributable to differences in physical characteristics of the merchandise, pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act and section 351.411 of the Department’s regulations. We also made adjustments for differences in circumstances of sale (COS) in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act and section 351.410 of the Department’s regulations. We made COS adjustments for imputed credit expenses. See PreliminaryAnalysis Memorandum at page 3. Finally, we deducted home market packing costs and added U.S. packing costs in accordance with sections 773(a)(6)(A) and (B) of the Act. Level of Trade In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B) of the Act, to the extent practicable, we base NV on sales made in the comparison market at the same level of trade (LOT) as the export transaction. The NV LOT is based on the starting price of sales in the home market or, when NV is based on CV, on the LOT of the sales from which SG&A expenses and profit are derived. To determine whether NV sales are at a different LOT than EP sales, we examine stages in the marketing process and selling functions along the chain of distribution between the producer and the customer. See 19 CFR 351.412(c)(2). If the comparison-market sales are at a different LOT, and the difference affects price comparability, as manifested in a pattern of consistent price differences between the sales on which NV is based and comparison-market sales at the LOT of the export transaction, we make a LOT adjustment under section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act. We expect that if the claimed LOTs are the same, the PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 33203 functions and activities of the seller should be similar. Conversely, if a party claims the LOTs are different for different groups of sales, the functions and activities of the seller should be dissimilar. See Porcelain-on-Steel Cookware from Mexico: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 65 FR 30068 (May 10, 2000), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 6. Noksel reported that it sold lightwalled rectangular pipe and tube at only one level of trade and in only one channel of distribution in the home market and at one level of trade and in one channel of distribution in the U.S. market. See Noksel’s Section A Response at ExhibitA–7 and Noksel’s Section B Response at pages B–12 to B– 13 and B–24. Based on our analysis of the record evidence provided by Noksel, we preliminarily determine that a single LOT exists in the home market. We obtained information from Noksel regarding the marketing stages involved in making its reported home market and U.S. sales. Noksel described all selling activities performed, and provided a table comparing the selling functions performed in both markets. See Noksel’s Section A response at Exhibit A–7. We find Noksel performed virtually the same level of customer support services on its EP sales as it did on its home market sales and that the minor differences that do exist do not establish distinct and separate levels of trade. The record evidence supports a finding that in both markets, Noksel performs essentially the same level of services. While we found minor differences between the home and U.S. markets, based on our analysis of the selling functions performed on EP sales in the United States, and its sales in the home market, we determine that the EP and the starting price of home market sales represent the same stage in the marketing process, and are thus at the same LOT. For this reason, we preliminarily find that a LOT adjustment is not appropriate for Noksel. Currency Conversions In accordance with section 773A(a) of the Act, we made Turkish lira-U.S. dollar currency conversions, where appropriate, based on the exchange rates in effect on the dates of the U.S. sales, as collected by Dow Jones Reuters Business Interactive LLC (marketed as Factiva) and as published on the Import Administration’s Web site (http://ia.ita. doc.gov/exchange/index.html). E:\FR\FM\08JNN1.SGM 08JNN1 33204 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 110 / Wednesday, June 8, 2011 / Notices completion of this administrative review, pursuant to section 351.212(b) of the Department’s regulations, the Department will calculate an assessment rate on all appropriate entries. Noksel has reported entered values for all of its sales of subject merchandise to the United States during the POR. Weighted average Therefore, in accordance with section Manufacturer/exporter margin (percentage) 351.212(b)(1) of the Department’s regulations, we will calculate importerNoksel ........................... 0.00% specific duty assessment rates on the basis of the ratio of the total amount of Disclosure and Public Hearing antidumping duties calculated for the The Department will disclose examined sales to the total entered calculations performed within five days value of the examined sales of that of the date of publication of this notice importer. These rates will be assessed in accordance with section 351.224(b) of uniformly on all entries the respective the Department’s regulations. An importers made during the POR. Where interested party may request a hearing the assessment rate is above de minimis, within thirty days of publication. See we will instruct CBP to assess duties on section 351.310(c) of the Department’s all entries of subject merchandise by regulations. Any hearing, if requested, that importer. The Department intends will be held 37 days after the date of to issue appropriate assessment publication, or the first business day instructions directly to CBP fifteen days thereafter, unless the Department alters after publication of the final results of the date pursuant to section 351.310(d) review. The Department clarified its of the Department’s regulations. ‘‘automatic assessment’’ regulation on Requests should contain the party’s May 6, 2003. See Antidumping and name, address, and telephone number, Countervailing Duty Proceedings: the number of participants, and a list of Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 68 the issues to be discussed. At the FR 23954 (May 6, 2003). This hearing, each party may make an clarification will apply to entries of affirmative presentation only on issues raised in that party’s case brief and may subject merchandise during the POR produced by the respondent for which make rebuttal presentations only on it did not know its merchandise was arguments included in that party’s destined for the United States. In such rebuttal brief. instances, we will instruct CBP to Comments liquidate un-reviewed entries at the allInterested parties may submit case others rate if there is no rate for the briefs no later than 30 days after the intermediate company involved in the date of publication of these preliminary transaction. Id. results of review. See 19 CFR Cash Deposit Requirements 351.309(c). Rebuttal briefs, limited to Furthermore, the following deposit issues raised in the case briefs, may be filed no later than 35 days after the date requirements will be effective upon of publication of this notice. See 19 CFR completion of the final results of this administrative review for all shipments 351.309(d). Parties who submit of light-walled rectangular pipe and arguments in this proceeding are tube from Turkey entered, or withdrawn requested to submit with the argument: from warehouse, for consumption on or (1) a statement of the issue; (2) a brief after the publication date of the final summary of the argument; and (3) a results of this administrative review, as table of authorities. Further, parties provided by section 751(a)(1) of the Act: submitting written comments should (1) The cash deposit rate for Noksel will provide the Department with an be the rate established in the final additional copy of the public version of results of review; (2) if the exporter is any such comments on diskette. The not a firm covered in this review or the Department will issue final results of less-than-fair-value (LTFV) this administrative review, including investigation, but the manufacturer is, the results of our analysis of the issues the cash deposit rate will be the rate in any such written comments or at a established for the most recent period hearing, within 120 days of publication for the manufacturer of the of these preliminary results. merchandise; and (3) if neither the Assessment Rates exporter nor the manufacturer is a firm The Department shall determine, and covered in this or any previous review CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on conducted by the Department, the cash all appropriate entries. Upon deposit rate will be the all-others rate of sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Preliminary Results of Review As a result of our review, we preliminarily find the following weighted-average dumping margin exists for the period May 1, 2009, through April 30, 2010: VerDate Mar<15>2010 21:51 Jun 07, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 27.04 percent ad valorem from the LTFV investigation. See Notice of Antidumping Duty Order: Light-Walled Rectangular Pipe and Tube From Turkey, 73 FR 31065 (May 30, 2008). These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice. Notification to Importers This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary’s presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double the antidumping duties. We are issuing and publishing this notice in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. Dated: May 31, 2011. Ronald K. Lorentzen, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. 2011–14172 Filed 6–7–11; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A–489–501] Certain Welded Carbon Steel Pipe and Tube From Turkey; Notice of Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: In response to a request by interested parties, the Department of Commerce (‘‘the Department’’) is conducting an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain welded carbon steel pipe and tube (‘‘welded pipe and tube’’) from Turkey. See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Requests for Revocation in Part, 75 FR 37759 (June 30, 2010) (‘‘Review Initiation’’).1 This review covers the Borusan Group 2 (collectively AGENCY: 1 Tubeco Pipe and Steel Corporation was mistakenly listed as a company for which the Department received a request for review. 2 The Borusan Group includes Borusan Mannesmann Boru Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S., Borusan Birlesik Boru Fabrikalari San ve Tic., Borusan Istikbal Ticaret T.A.S., Boruson Holding A.S., Boruson Gemlik Boru Tesisleri A.S., Borusan E:\FR\FM\08JNN1.SGM 08JNN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 110 (Wednesday, June 8, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 33200-33204]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-14172]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-489-815]


Light-Walled Rectangular Pipe and Tube from Turkey; Notice of 
Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.

SUMMARY: In response to a request from Noksel Celik Boru Sanayi A.S., 
(Noksel), the Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting an 
administrative review of the antidumping duty order on light-walled 
rectangular pipe and tube from Turkey. Atlas Tube, Inc. and Searing 
Industries, Inc. are petitioners in this case. The review covers 
exports of the subject

[[Page 33201]]

merchandise to the United States produced and exported by Noksel. The 
period of review (POR) is May 1, 2009, through April 30, 2010.
    We preliminarily find that Noksel did not make sales at less than 
normal value (NV) during the POR. If these preliminary results are 
adopted in our final results of this review, we will instruct U.S. 
Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to assess appropriate antidumping 
duties on any entries made by Noksel during the POR and to set the cash 
deposit rate for Noksel to zero.

DATES: Effective Date: June 8, 2011

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tyler Weinhold or Robert James, AD/CVD 
Operations, Office 7, Import Administration, International Trade 
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-
1121 or (202) 482-0649, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background

    The Department published the antidumping duty order on light-walled 
rectangular ripe and tube from Turkey on May 30, 2008. See Notice of 
Antidumping Duty Order: Light-Walled Rectangular Pipe and Tube from 
Turkey, 73 FR 31065 (May 30, 2008). On May 3, 2010, the Department 
published the notice of opportunity to request an administrative review 
of light-walled rectangular pipe and tube from Turkey for the period 
January 30, 2009, through April 30, 2010. See Antidumping or 
Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; 
Opportunity To Request Administrative Review, 75 FR 23236 (May 3, 2010)
    On May 28, 2010, Noksel requested an administrative review for this 
period. On June 30, 2010, the Department published in the Federal 
Register a notice of initiation of this antidumping duty administrative 
review. See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 
Administrative Reviews and Requests for Revocation in Part, 75 FR 37759 
(June 30, 2010). On July 15, 2010, the Department issued its 
antidumping questionnaire to Noksel.
    As discussed in detail, below, on August 9, 2010, Noksel submitted 
a letter requesting that the reporting period be modified to cover only 
the period of October 1, 2009, through April 30, 2010, and that it be 
excused from reporting certain home market sales of ``second quality'' 
merchandise for which Noksel claimed it lacked sufficient records to 
allow it to respond fully to the Department's questionnaire or to 
identify foreign like product. On August 13, 2010, the Department sent 
Noksel a supplemental questionnaire requesting additional information 
about Noksel's request for limited reporting of home market sales. On 
August 16, 2010, the Department sent Noksel a letter accepting Noksel's 
limited reporting of home market sales to the period October 1, 2009, 
to April 30, 2010, and tentatively excusing Noksel from reporting the 
sales of certain ``second quality'' merchandise for which Noksel 
claimed it lacked sufficient records. Noksel submitted its response to 
the Department's supplemental questionnaire regarding limited reporting 
on August 20, 2010 (Noksel's August 20, 2010 Response).
    Noksel submitted its response to section A of the Department's 
antidumping questionnaire on August 16, 2010 (Noksel's Section A 
Response). Noksel submitted its response to sections B and C of the 
antidumping questionnaire on September 7, 2010 (Noksel's Sections B and 
C Response).
    On November 12, 2010, the Department issued a supplemental 
questionnaire to Noksel regarding Noksel's Section A Response and 
Noksel's Sections B and C Response and Nokel's Limited Reporting 
Questionnaire Response. Noksel submitted its response to the 
Department's supplemental questionnaire on December 20, 2010 (Noksel's 
December 20, 2010 Response).
    On March 4, 2011, the Department issued a second supplemental 
questionnaire to Noksel regarding its prior questionnaire responses. 
Noksel submitted its response to the Department's second supplemental 
questionnaire on March 23, 2011 (Noksel's March 23, 2011 Response).

Scope of the Order

    The merchandise subject to this order is certain welded carbon 
quality light-walled steel pipe and tube, of rectangular (including 
square) cross section, having a wall thickness of less than 4 mm. The 
term carbon-quality steel includes both carbon steel and alloy steel 
which contains only small amounts of alloying elements. Specifically, 
the term carbon-quality includes products in which none of the elements 
listed below exceeds the quantity by weight respectively indicated: 
1.80 percent of manganese, or 2.25 percent of silicon, or 1.00 percent 
of copper, or 0.50 percent of aluminum, or 1.25 percent of chromium, or 
0.30 percent of cobalt, or 0.40 percent of lead, or 1.25 percent of 
nickel, or 0.30 percent of tungsten, or 0.10 percent of molybdenum, or 
0.10 percent of niobium, or 0.15 percent vanadium, or 0.15 percent of 
zirconium. The description of carbon-quality is intended to identify 
carbon-quality products within the scope. The welded carbon-quality 
rectangular pipe and tube subject to this order is currently classified 
under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) 
subheadings 7306.61.50.00 and 7306.61.70.60. While HTSUS subheadings 
are provided for convenience and CBP's customs purposes, our written 
description of the scope of the order is dispositive.

Limited Home Market Reporting

    As explained above, Noksel requested that the reporting period for 
home market sales be limited to the period October 1, 2009, to April 
30, 2010. Noksel reported U.S. sales which were invoiced in only one 
calendar month of the POR. Noksel reported that it had no other U.S. 
sales during the POR. See, e.g., Noksel's August 9, 2010, letter. 
Noksel also requested that the Department excuse it from reporting 
home-market sales of certain ``second quality'' merchandise for which 
Noksel claimed it lacked sufficient records. See Noksel's August 9, 
2010, letter.
    Regarding Noksel's request that we limit the home market reporting 
period, our past practice in other cases in which respondents made 
sales of subject merchandise in only a portion of the POR has been to 
allow respondents to limit their home market sales reporting period to 
those home market sales which are contemporaneous with their U.S. 
sales. See, e.g., Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products From 
India: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 
71 FR 2018 (January 12, 2006) (unchanged in Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon 
Steel Flat Products From India: Final Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review, 71 FR 40694); Certain Hot-Rolled Flat-Rolled 
Carbon Quality Steel Products from Brazil; Preliminary Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 70 FR 17406 (April 6, 2005) 
(unchanged in Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review: Certain Hot-Rolled Flat-Rolled Carbon Quality 
Steel Products From Brazil, 70 FR 58683); and Light-Walled Rectangular 
Pipe and Tube from Turkey; Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review, 75 FR 61127 (October 4, 2010). For this reason, 
we have permitted Noksel to limit its reporting of home market sales to 
those months which are contemporaneous with its U.S. sales. In our 
margin calculations, U.S. sales made in January 2010 could potentially 
be compared to the prices of home market

[[Page 33202]]

sales at any time between October 2009 and March 2010; U.S. sales made 
in February 2010 could potentially be compared to the prices of home 
market sales made between November 2009 and April 2010. U.S. sales made 
in January 2010 or February 2010 could not match to home market sales 
made in any months outside of these periods. Therefore, to ensure that 
we would have the necessary home market sales, regardless of our choice 
of date of sale, we allowed Noksel to limit its reporting of home 
market sales to those sales made during the period October 2009 through 
April 2010.
    Our analysis indicated, based on record evidence, that the 
appropriate date of sale of Noksel's U.S. sales might properly be a 
date in February 2010. See, e.g., Exhibit C-2 of Noksel's Section B and 
C response, at page 2 and Exhibit SB-8 of Noksel's December 20, 2010 
Response at page 4. Therefore, to allow the Department to use the date 
of sale methodology deemed most appropriate, and to ensure 
completeness, we asked Noksel to report home market sales made in May 
2010 as well. See the Department's March 4, 2011, supplemental 
questionnaire and Noksel's March 23, 2011 Response. Accordingly, for 
these preliminary results, we have limited the reporting period for 
home market sales to the period of October 1, 2009, through May 31, 
2010.
    As noted, Noksel also reported that it had made sales of certain 
``second quality'' merchandise for which Noksel claimed it lacked 
complete sales records. See Noksel's August 9, 2010, letter. Noksel 
further explained that it could not differentiate the sales of these 
products according to product type. We excused Noksel from reporting 
these sales in its sales home market database, but we also subsequently 
asked Noksel to report whatever information if maintained about these 
sales. See the Department's March 4, 2011, supplemental questionnaire. 
Noksel complied. See Noksel's March 23, 2011 Response. Based on the 
information on the record, we preliminarily determine that these are 
sales of ``second quality'' merchandise that would not be suitable for 
matching to the prime quality pipe Noksel sold in the United States.

Fair Value Comparisons

    To determine whether sales of light-walled rectangular pipe and 
tube from Turkey in the United States were made at less than NV, we 
compared U.S. price to NV, as described in the ``Export Price'' and 
``Normal Value'' sections of this notice. In accordance with section 
777A(d)(2) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), we 
calculated monthly weighted-average NVs and compared these to 
individual U.S. transactions. Because we determined Noksel made only EP 
sales during the POR, we used EP as the basis for U.S. price in all of 
our comparisons.
    In accordance with 19 CFR 351.410(i), the Department ``normally'' 
will use invoice date as the date of sale unless ``a different date 
better reflects the date on which the exporter or producer establishes 
the material terms of sale.'' Based on evidence on the record, we 
preliminarily determine that the material terms of sale for U.S. sales 
were established at the time of the issuance of the purchase order/
contract. Noksel explained that quantity can vary between the purchase 
order date and the invoice date. Noksel reports that a quantity 
tolerance is permitted from the quantity stated on the purchase order, 
and that quantity can vary after the date of the purchase order, up 
until production is completed. See Noksel's Section A Response at page 
A-18 and page 1 of Exhibit A-8; Noksel's Sections B and C Response at 
pages C-12, and Noksel's December 20, 2010 Response at pages S-62 to S-
64 and Noksel's March 23, 2011 Response at pages 14 to 15. However, in 
the case of Noksel's U.S. sale, neither quantity nor unit price varied 
between purchase order and invoice. See Noksel's Section A Response at 
Exhibit A-8.
    Based on record evidence, we also determine that the material terms 
of sale for home market sales were established at the time the purchase 
order. Therefore, we used the purchase order date, as recorded in 
Noksel's normal books and records, as the date of sale for Noksel's 
U.S. and home market sales. See Memorandum from Tyler Weinhold to the 
File, ``Analysis of Data Submitted by Noksel Celik Boru Sanayi A.S., 
(Noksel) in the Preliminary Results of the 2009-2010 Administrative 
Review of Light-Walled Rectangular Pipe and Tube from Turkey,'' dated 
May 31, 2011 (Preliminary Analysis Memorandum).

Product Comparisons

    In accordance with section 771(16) of the Act, we considered all 
products produced by Noksel covered by the description in the ``Scope 
of the Order'' section, above, and sold in the home market during the 
POR, to be foreign like products for purposes of determining 
appropriate product comparisons to U.S. sales. As mentioned above, we 
limited the reporting period for home market sales to the period of 
October 1, 2009, through May 31, 2010. We relied on six characteristics 
to match U.S. sales of subject merchandise to home market sales of the 
foreign like product (listed in order of priority): (1) Steel input 
type; (2) metallic coating; (3) painted/non-painted; (4) perimeter; (5) 
wall thickness; and (6) shape. See the antidumping questionnaire at 
Appendix 5. In our normal practice where there are no contemporaneous 
sales of identical merchandise in the home market to compare to U.S. 
sales, we compare U.S. sales to contemporaneous sales of the next most 
similar foreign like product on the basis of these product 
characteristics and the reporting instructions listed in the 
antidumping questionnaire. See Preliminary Analysis memorandum at page 
2. For these preliminary results, we compared U.S. sales to identical 
foreign like products. In our normal practice, where there are no sales 
of identical or similar merchandise in the home market suitable for 
comparison to U.S. sales, we compare U.S. sales to constructed value 
(CV). For these preliminary results, because there were sales of 
identical merchandise in the home market suitable for comparison to 
each U.S. sale, we compared no U.S. sales to CV in these preliminary 
results.

Export Price

    Section 772(a) of the Act defines Export Price (EP) as ``the price 
at which the subject merchandise is first sold (or agreed to be sold) 
before the date of importation by the producer or exporter of subject 
merchandise outside of the United States to an unaffiliated purchaser 
in the United States or to an unaffiliated purchaser for exportation to 
the United States,'' as adjusted under section 772(c). In accordance 
with section 772(a) of the Act, we used EP for all of Noksel's U.S. 
sales. We preliminarily find that these sales are properly classified 
as EP sales because these sales were made before the date of 
importation and were made directly to unaffiliated U.S. customers, and 
because our CEP methodology was not otherwise warranted.
    We based EP on the prices to unaffiliated customers in the United 
States. We made adjustments for duty drawback. We also made deductions 
for movement expenses in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the 
Act, which included, where appropriate, foreign inland freight, foreign 
brokerage and handling, international freight, and exporter's 
association fee. See Preliminary Analysis memorandum at page 7. 
Additionally, we made adjustments for direct selling expenses (credit 
expenses, banking charges) in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of 
the Act. Id.

[[Page 33203]]

    Noksel originally stated that it reported its U.S. sales and per-
unit adjustments according to Turkish Customs weigh station weights, as 
recorded on the Turkish customs exit declaration. However, Noksel later 
clarified that it had mistakenly mis-represented the quantity reported 
in its U.S. sales databases as coming from Turkish Customs weigh 
station weights, when in fact it was taken from the weights from 
Noksel's normal books and records, recorded during packing of the 
subject merchandise. See Noksel's March 23, 2011 Response at page 14 
and Noksel's December 20, 2010 Response at page S-94. Noksel explained 
that it weighed individual bundles of foreign like product and subject 
merchandise during packing, and was able to tie the recorded weights of 
individual bundles of pipe to specific home market and U.S. sales 
invoices. See Noksel's December 20, 2010 Response at pages S-88 to S-
98, and S-113. We relied upon this information for these preliminary 
results.
    Noksel reported that it collected rebates of import duties for 
purchases of raw materials, based on its exports of merchandise (duty 
drawback), under the Turkish Inward Processing Regime (IPR). Noksel 
reported that these rebates were dependent upon its exports of subject 
merchandise. See Noksel's Sections B and C Response at pages C-31 to C-
32. Noksel also demonstrated the quantity of imports of materials for 
which Noksel received rebates of import duties were sufficient to cover 
the quantity of exports made under the IPR. See Noksel's December 20, 
2010 Response at pages S-117 to S-119, and Noksel's March 23, 2011 
Response at pages 16 to 23. Therefore in accordance with section 
772(c)(1)(B) of the Act, we made an upward adjustment to U.S. price for 
duty drawback. See, e.g., Certain Welded Carbon Steel Pipe and Tube 
From Turkey: Notice of Final Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 75 
FR 64250 (October 19, 2010). See also Preliminary Analysis Memorandum 
at page 6.

Normal Value

A. Selection of Comparison Market

    In order to determine whether there was a sufficient volume of 
sales in the home market to serve as a viable basis for calculating NV 
(i.e., the aggregate volume of home market sales of the foreign like 
product was equal to or greater than five percent of the aggregate 
volume of U.S. sales), we compared Noksel's volume of home market sales 
of the foreign like product to the volume of U.S. sales of the subject 
merchandise, in accordance with section 773(a)(1) of the Act. Because 
Noksel's aggregate volume of home market sales of the foreign like 
product was greater than five percent of its aggregate volume of U.S. 
sales of the subject merchandise, we determined the home market was 
viable. Therefore, we have based NV on home market sales in the usual 
commercial quantities and in the ordinary course of trade.

B. Price-to-Price Comparisons

    We calculated NV based on prices to unaffiliated customers. We made 
adjustments for billing adjustments, where appropriate. We made 
deductions, where appropriate, for foreign inland freight, pursuant to 
section 773(a)(6)(B) of the Act. In addition, when comparing sales of 
similar merchandise, we made adjustments for differences in cost (i.e., 
DIFMER), where those differences were attributable to differences in 
physical characteristics of the merchandise, pursuant to section 
773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act and section 351.411 of the Department's 
regulations. We also made adjustments for differences in circumstances 
of sale (COS) in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act 
and section 351.410 of the Department's regulations. We made COS 
adjustments for imputed credit expenses. See PreliminaryAnalysis 
Memorandum at page 3. Finally, we deducted home market packing costs 
and added U.S. packing costs in accordance with sections 773(a)(6)(A) 
and (B) of the Act.

Level of Trade

    In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B) of the Act, to the extent 
practicable, we base NV on sales made in the comparison market at the 
same level of trade (LOT) as the export transaction. The NV LOT is 
based on the starting price of sales in the home market or, when NV is 
based on CV, on the LOT of the sales from which SG&A expenses and 
profit are derived.
    To determine whether NV sales are at a different LOT than EP sales, 
we examine stages in the marketing process and selling functions along 
the chain of distribution between the producer and the customer. See 19 
CFR 351.412(c)(2). If the comparison-market sales are at a different 
LOT, and the difference affects price comparability, as manifested in a 
pattern of consistent price differences between the sales on which NV 
is based and comparison-market sales at the LOT of the export 
transaction, we make a LOT adjustment under section 773(a)(7)(A) of the 
Act. We expect that if the claimed LOTs are the same, the functions and 
activities of the seller should be similar. Conversely, if a party 
claims the LOTs are different for different groups of sales, the 
functions and activities of the seller should be dissimilar. See 
Porcelain-on-Steel Cookware from Mexico: Final Results of Antidumping 
Duty Administrative Review, 65 FR 30068 (May 10, 2000), and 
accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 6.
    Noksel reported that it sold light-walled rectangular pipe and tube 
at only one level of trade and in only one channel of distribution in 
the home market and at one level of trade and in one channel of 
distribution in the U.S. market. See Noksel's Section A Response at 
ExhibitA-7 and Noksel's Section B Response at pages B-12 to B-13 and B-
24.
    Based on our analysis of the record evidence provided by Noksel, we 
preliminarily determine that a single LOT exists in the home market. We 
obtained information from Noksel regarding the marketing stages 
involved in making its reported home market and U.S. sales. Noksel 
described all selling activities performed, and provided a table 
comparing the selling functions performed in both markets. See Noksel's 
Section A response at Exhibit A-7. We find Noksel performed virtually 
the same level of customer support services on its EP sales as it did 
on its home market sales and that the minor differences that do exist 
do not establish distinct and separate levels of trade. The record 
evidence supports a finding that in both markets, Noksel performs 
essentially the same level of services. While we found minor 
differences between the home and U.S. markets, based on our analysis of 
the selling functions performed on EP sales in the United States, and 
its sales in the home market, we determine that the EP and the starting 
price of home market sales represent the same stage in the marketing 
process, and are thus at the same LOT. For this reason, we 
preliminarily find that a LOT adjustment is not appropriate for Noksel.

Currency Conversions

    In accordance with section 773A(a) of the Act, we made Turkish 
lira-U.S. dollar currency conversions, where appropriate, based on the 
exchange rates in effect on the dates of the U.S. sales, as collected 
by Dow Jones Reuters Business Interactive LLC (marketed as Factiva) and 
as published on the Import Administration's Web site (http://ia.ita.doc.gov/exchange/index.html).

[[Page 33204]]

Preliminary Results of Review

    As a result of our review, we preliminarily find the following 
weighted-average dumping margin exists for the period May 1, 2009, 
through April 30, 2010:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       Weighted average
                Manufacturer/exporter                       margin
                                                         (percentage)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Noksel..............................................               0.00%
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Disclosure and Public Hearing

    The Department will disclose calculations performed within five 
days of the date of publication of this notice in accordance with 
section 351.224(b) of the Department's regulations. An interested party 
may request a hearing within thirty days of publication. See section 
351.310(c) of the Department's regulations. Any hearing, if requested, 
will be held 37 days after the date of publication, or the first 
business day thereafter, unless the Department alters the date pursuant 
to section 351.310(d) of the Department's regulations. Requests should 
contain the party's name, address, and telephone number, the number of 
participants, and a list of the issues to be discussed. At the hearing, 
each party may make an affirmative presentation only on issues raised 
in that party's case brief and may make rebuttal presentations only on 
arguments included in that party's rebuttal brief.

Comments

    Interested parties may submit case briefs no later than 30 days 
after the date of publication of these preliminary results of review. 
See 19 CFR 351.309(c). Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in the 
case briefs, may be filed no later than 35 days after the date of 
publication of this notice. See 19 CFR 351.309(d). Parties who submit 
arguments in this proceeding are requested to submit with the argument: 
(1) a statement of the issue; (2) a brief summary of the argument; and 
(3) a table of authorities. Further, parties submitting written 
comments should provide the Department with an additional copy of the 
public version of any such comments on diskette. The Department will 
issue final results of this administrative review, including the 
results of our analysis of the issues in any such written comments or 
at a hearing, within 120 days of publication of these preliminary 
results.

Assessment Rates

    The Department shall determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping 
duties on all appropriate entries. Upon completion of this 
administrative review, pursuant to section 351.212(b) of the 
Department's regulations, the Department will calculate an assessment 
rate on all appropriate entries. Noksel has reported entered values for 
all of its sales of subject merchandise to the United States during the 
POR. Therefore, in accordance with section 351.212(b)(1) of the 
Department's regulations, we will calculate importer-specific duty 
assessment rates on the basis of the ratio of the total amount of 
antidumping duties calculated for the examined sales to the total 
entered value of the examined sales of that importer. These rates will 
be assessed uniformly on all entries the respective importers made 
during the POR. Where the assessment rate is above de minimis, we will 
instruct CBP to assess duties on all entries of subject merchandise by 
that importer. The Department intends to issue appropriate assessment 
instructions directly to CBP fifteen days after publication of the 
final results of review.
    The Department clarified its ``automatic assessment'' regulation on 
May 6, 2003. See Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: 
Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 68 FR 23954 (May 6, 2003). This 
clarification will apply to entries of subject merchandise during the 
POR produced by the respondent for which it did not know its 
merchandise was destined for the United States. In such instances, we 
will instruct CBP to liquidate un-reviewed entries at the all-others 
rate if there is no rate for the intermediate company involved in the 
transaction. Id.

Cash Deposit Requirements

    Furthermore, the following deposit requirements will be effective 
upon completion of the final results of this administrative review for 
all shipments of light-walled rectangular pipe and tube from Turkey 
entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the 
publication date of the final results of this administrative review, as 
provided by section 751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rate for 
Noksel will be the rate established in the final results of review; (2) 
if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review or the less-than-
fair-value (LTFV) investigation, but the manufacturer is, the cash 
deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recent period 
for the manufacturer of the merchandise; and (3) if neither the 
exporter nor the manufacturer is a firm covered in this or any previous 
review conducted by the Department, the cash deposit rate will be the 
all-others rate of 27.04 percent ad valorem from the LTFV 
investigation. See Notice of Antidumping Duty Order: Light-Walled 
Rectangular Pipe and Tube From Turkey, 73 FR 31065 (May 30, 2008). 
These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until 
further notice.

Notification to Importers

    This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of 
their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) to file a certificate 
regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation 
of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply 
with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that 
reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent 
assessment of double the antidumping duties.
    We are issuing and publishing this notice in accordance with 
sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: May 31, 2011.
Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 2011-14172 Filed 6-7-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P